this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
298 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22674 readers
5438 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

The claim about the budget is true.

Source.

A Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told Newsweek in an email that the chart's equity section "refers to making it possible for more people to share reliable knowledge on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects."

The email continues: "Wikipedia is built on the premise that it becomes better when more people of different backgrounds—including political persuasions—source, edit, curate and research content. Our equity goal advances that. The 'Safety & Inclusion' goal (now titled 'Safety & Integrity' in our 2024-2025 plan) is focused on ensuring that people are able to freely access and safely contribute to knowledge on Wikipedia in a changing legal and policy environment globally."

The spokesperson continued: "The goal centers on legal efforts that protect free expression, prevent censorship and advocate for laws and regulations that keep Wikipedia accessible for all to use."

I don't think that's where a lot of donors (especially but not exclusively conservative donors) want their money going, and I don't think Wikipedia's donation requests would lead these donors to realize that that's where some of their money would be going.

Where your donation goes

Technology: Servers, bandwidth, maintenance, development. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world, and it runs on a fraction of what other top websites spend.

People and Projects: The other top websites have thousands of employees. Wikimedia Foundation has about 700 staff and contractors to support a wide variety of projects, making your donation a great investment in a highly-efficient not-for-profit organization.

Source.

I suppose that "People and Projects" is vague enough that it isn't false, but I was certainly surprised when I saw the actual budget allocation.

Edit: I accidentally posted this with an image from an episode of the Simpsons instead of the chart I meant to post. Please disregard that.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think that’s where a lot of donors (especially but not exclusively conservative donors) want their money going, and I don’t think Wikipedia’s donation requests would lead people to understand that that’s where some of their money would be going.

Why are you trying to frame this as if wikipedia was lying on where their funding goes when your own source is their own transparency article?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They're not lying but they're being misleading. Everyone who donates sees the donation page, but it's reasonable to assume that almost all of those donors don't read the "Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Finance" page.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How do you think employees get paid?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I assume that employee salaries are included in the category that corresponds to the work that they do.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don’t think that’s where a lot of donors (especially but not exclusively conservative donors) want their money going

You don't think people want to access Wikipedia safely and securely or guarantee an egalitarian sourcing of information?

I was certainly surprised when I saw the actual budget allocation.

"I didn't know how a public-facing non-profit catalogue of information spent its money. Now I do. And I hate it."

shrug

Why do people think their own personal ignorance is an indictment?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

Your donation goes towards running Wikipedia. There's a blurb for pitching that, with a few details, but if you want everything, you gave to go to another page and read it? That all sounds exactly like what I'd expect from a banner ad seeking donations for a website